ἐτέρψαντο would not have fit the meter, though I suppose τέρψαντ' would have done. Sometimes there is a difference in meaning between the aorist middle and the aorist passive (έγράψατο versus ἐγράφη) and sometimes (more often?) there is not. (ἀποκρίθη versus ἀποκρίνατο.) I would not see any semantic difference here.

huilen wrote:πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα,

S&H says that κάρη and μέτωπα are accusatives of specification. Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?

Sure. πῶς γὰρ οὔ?

As an aside, the terms "direct object" and "accusative of specification" really mean the same thing. In each case, the verb is limited by the accusative. τὴν σφαῖραν βάλλω means not I throw in general, but that I throw in respect to the ball, I throw as far as the ball goes. Another way of saying this is, I throw the ball.

I think the point with "accusative of specification" (which I think is the same as "accusative of respect") is that you have two ways of interpreting this:1) like you say, the verb is ἔχει and the meaning "she holds her head and forehead above everybody etc"2) OR, the verb is really ὑπερέχω in "tmesis", which is intransitive (Cunliffe 3a, http://www.tlg.uci.edu/cunliffe/#eid=91 ... rom-search). "She exceeded them all in in height, by head and forehead" (or something like that)

I don't think you would call τὴν σφαῖραν βάλλω accusative of specification/respect.

πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς is famous case of "accusative of respect": Achilles, swift with respect to his feet = swift-footed.

EDIT: I see Victor got there before me. Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.

The second aorist in -ην is primarily intransitive and shows active inflection (as ἔστην stood). Many so-called passive forms are in fact merely intransitive aorists of active verbs, as ἐρρύην from ῥέω flow, κατεκλίνην from κατακλί_νω lie down, and do not differ in meaning from the aorists of deponent verbs, as ἐμάνην from μαίνομαι rage.

The aorists in -θην that are called passive are often active or middle in meaning, as ἥσθην took pleasure in from ἥδομαι, ᾐσχύνθην felt ashamed from αἰσχύ_νω disgrace, αἰσχύ_νομαι am ashamed; ὠργίσθην became angry from ὀργίζω anger.

The point is, you would not HAVE to, because this sentence happens to more or less mirror what we call in English the direct object. I'm nitpicking, but the accusative of respect, I think, is only appealed to when the Greek grammar happens to diverge from the English. For example:

ἐφόρει ἱμάτιον.

No problem here. "He was wearing a garment." We can call this a direct object.

ἦν ἐνδεδυμένος ἱμάτιον.

"He was clothed IN a garment," or "He was clothed in respect to a garment." We cannot say in English "He was clothed a garment," so we don't like to call this a direct object. We say that the first verb is transitive and the second first is intransitive and we say that intransitive verbs (in English, anyway) do not take direct objects, so, it goes down a little easier to call the second instance an accusative of respect. But in both cases the noun limits the verb in the same way. The reality is that intransitive verbs (in Greek) CAN take direct objects, it's just that when they do, we call them something else (accusative of respect.)

πόδας ὠκὺς Ἀχιλλεύς is famous case of "accusative of respect": Achilles, swift with respect to his feet = swift-footed.

Same thing. In English we can say "He has fast feet." Feet is a direct object. In English we cannot say "He is fast, feet." So we need a label different than direct object. But there is no such distinction in Greek. There is only an equally limiting accusative.

What I am saying here about the accusative of respect does not necessarily apply to Odyssey 6:114, which is a little more complicated than my examples.

Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.

You almost always can. You can always see Greek from several different angles of meta-language.

Qimmik wrote:I checked (admittedly rather casually) the Prendergast and Dunbar concordances to the Iliad and Odyssey, respectively. I found only one instance of a sigmatic aorist for the verb τέρπω: Od. 12.188:

ἀλλ᾽ ὅ γε τερψάμενος νεῖται καὶ πλείονα εἰδώς.

Forms based on roots taking the -ην aorist forms in the indicative otherwise prevail:

τερφθ-, ταρπ-, ταρφθ-

Do you think, Bill, there would have been a difference in meaning had Homer written

Smyth makes essentially the same point as Markos at the very beginning of his discussion of the accusative:

1551:

The accusative is a form of defining or qualifying the verb.

1552:

A noun stands in the accusative when the idea it expresses is most immediately (in contrast to the dative) and most completely (in contrast to the genitive) under the influence of the verbal conception (in contrast to the nominative).

Accusatives classified as "direct object" and as "accusative of respect" are really just two manifestations of the same phenomenon. The traditional classifications can be useful, so long as you remember that they are really essentially aspects of the same thing.

"defining or qualifying the verb" -- Smyth could have added "or adjective".

Paul Derouda wrote:EDIT: I see Victor got there before me. Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.

That's a more reasonable approach than mine, Paul, I have to say. I've only got the editions of Stanford and Merry to hand, and I was following Stanford's interpretation. It would be nice to know what more recent editors have to say about this. Maybe there is a consensus now, and the consensus is that the κάρη and μέτωπα are simply direct objects of ἔχει after all.

If κάρη and μέτωπα are direct objects, ὑπερ must be a preposition (or more accurately a postposition), not a pre-verb in tmesis. In that case, ὑπερ ought to be accented ὕπερ, shouldn't it? The fact that editors accent it ὑπὲρ suggests that they consider it a preverb and take κάρη and μέτωπα as accusatives of respect. This is one instance where the distinction between direct object and accusative of respect actually makes a difference in the printed text, if I'm not mistaken (which I could well be).

Incidentally, it's worth noting that this is an instance where the traditional grammatical categories of "direct object" vs. "accusative of respect" make a difference in meaning. Is she physically taller or does she just have better posture? She's a goddess, so of course you'd naturally expect her to be taller than any mere nymph.

I checked Garvie (Green and Yellow for books VI-VIII from 1994), which has ὕπερ (thus accented) and cites Il. 6.509 and 15.266 as parallels. So he considers it a postposition, but notes that others have taken it differently, exactly as Qimmik says.

But I find it hard to believe that accusative of respect is just a subjective tool for English speakers for situations where Greek syntax doesn't agree with English. First of all, my own native language is very different from English, yet I find the concept works very well. Then, if indeed we say that there's no fundamental difference between a direct object and an accusative of respect, we'd have to call ὑπερέχω here a transitive verb. Other strange things would then happen to the transitive/intransitive distinction, which I believe is a very relevant and universal distinction in languages across the world. I'm not a linguist, quite the opposite, but I suspect that it's possible to test more or less objectively whether are Greek verb is transitive or not, if we keep to the traditional definitions. I don't have a solution, I'm just voicing my doubts.

Markos wrote:

Anyway, I think you can really interprete this in two ways.

You almost always can. You can always see Greek from several different angles of meta-language.

How you call these accusatives is a question of meta-language, I agree. But the real question in this particular example is whether the verb is έχω or ὑπερέχω. That makes a real difference in meaning.

Compare:Push the door to, Jack! (=Jack, please close the door!)Push the door to Jack! (Take the door and move it where Jack is)Nobody would say that the difference in meaning is just meta-language here.

(I believe "push to" isn't common in contemporary English, but that's the first example that came to my mind)

where εὐρέας ὤμους can only be accusative of respect, since ὑπείρ- is a preverb and can't be a postposition, and there is no function for στάντων in the sentence other than a genitive depending on ὑπείρεχεν used intransitively.

Qimmik wrote:If κάρη and μέτωπα are direct objects, ὑπερ must be a preposition (or more accurately a postposition), not a pre-verb in tmesis. In that case, ὑπερ ought to be accented ὕπερ, shouldn't it? The fact that editors accent it ὑπὲρ suggests that they consider it a direct object. This is one instance where the distinction between direct object and accusative of respect actually makes a difference in the printed text, if I'm not mistaken (which I could well be).

Thanks for your reply! I'm still a little confused, I must admit, namely by your statement "The fact that editors accent it ὑπὲρ suggests that they consider it a direct object."Did you mean "suggests that they consider it a preverb in tmesis"?

LSJ seem to consider hyper here to be functioning as a postposition, since, where they cite this passage under the entry hyper, they write ὕπερ, though leaving out the intervening δ᾽.

Jelf's edition of Kühner's Grammar, in its treatment of the preposition hyper, also apparently assumes it to be a postposition here, since the cited passage reads πασάων δ᾽ ὕπερ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει.

Dindorf's edition of Stephanus' Thesaurus does the same where it cites this passage under the entry hyper.

Many later editors, though, do seem to accent ὑπὲρ, don't they? Confusingly for me, though, that includes Merry, whose note clearly indicates that he regards hyper as a postposition. Are we to see this simply as an oversight and he meant to write ὕπερ, or does he regard the intervening δ᾽ as something that would annul the need for a recessive accent?

Many later editors, though, do seem to accent ὑπὲρ, don't they? Confusingly for me, though, that includes Merry, whose note clearly indicates that he regards hyper as a postposition. Are we to see this simply as an oversight and he meant to write ὕπερ, or does he regard the intervening δ᾽ as something that would annul the need for a recessive accent?

Maybe that's right; I can't say I know for sure whether the intervening δ᾽ would affect the paroxytonization (to coin a word) of ὕπερ, although the other sources you cited that treat it as a postposition seem to accent it paroxytonically.

But for me the parallel with Il. 3.210 is very persuasive. I can't see εὐρέας ὤμους as anything but accusative of respect here.

Also, I really think the context makes it clear that Od. 6.107 is about stature, not posture.

Qimmik wrote:I used money from a prize to buy the Monro and Merry school editions--my proudest possessions at 14--and I still have them after 53 years.

I acquired my Merry only about 25 years ago, which was some time after I'd left school. The two volume set cost me £2. It'd be nice to be able to meet my teachers again just to let them know that the seed of enthusiasm they tried to plant in all their pupils' minds did bear occasional fruit at least.

I haven't used Merry's school commentary but I have the more scholarly commentary by him and Riddell on books I-XII (1886). It's pretty easy to get confused, especially as the sister volume for books XIII-XXIV is by Monro (1901). Incidentally, I think Merry-Riddell-Monro still has many insights that can't be found in any of the newer commentaries (though of course you should be careful, as many things have advanced in over a century). But actually of all Homer commentaries I've used, the only one I don't like much is Stanford.

I checked Merry-Riddell on this passage and it prints ὑπέρ. He (the notes on book 6 are by Merry) has a note where he clearly supports the idea that it's a postposition. You'd think that this accent mistake would have been corrected when he produced his school edition. Maybe indeed he was following some other accentuation rules. I checked a couple of other places with postpositions in that edition, but they have regular paroxytone accentuation.

Paul Derouda wrote:Smyth doesn't mention anything about intervening words annulling the need for anastrophe. I suppose that Merry is just mistaken.

Smyth may not mention it, but Monro (Grammar of the Homeric Dialect) does. See section 180, "Accentuation". Discussing anastrophe in certain disyllabic prepositions (for some reason he leaves hyper out of the list) he says that the prepositions are "liable to anastrophe...when placed immediately after (Monro's italics) the verb or the case-form to which they belong...Some held that the insertion of δέ before the preposition did not prevent anastrophe, and accordingly wrote ὦσε δ' ἄπο etc." Are we to assume from this statement that Monro is saying that the view of the majority is that an intervening δέ does prevent anastrophe?

Chandler, A Practical Introduction to Greek Accentuation, p. 256, sec. 910 does indeed claims that if "any word is interposed between the preposition and the word it governs the accent is not retracted unless the preposition finishes a sentence . . . "

But for me, the parallel to Il. 3.210 is very compelling, and I think that the idea in the Odyssey is that Artemis is taller than her companions, not that she holds her head higher. (The "holds her head higher" reading seems to me to trivialize the comparison.)

Another point: line 109 (ὣς ἥ γ᾽ ἀμφιπόλοισι μετέπρεπε παρθένος ἀδμής) also suggests that the idea is Artemis' physical stature--Nausicaa stood out among her servants just as Artemis did among her nymphs. The focus is on physical appearance.

Another reader, one who knew Greek literature, and particularly Homer, backwards and forwards, seems to come to the same conclusion. When Aeneas first meets Dido at Carthage in Book 1 of the Aeneid, there are many parallels to Odysseus' arrival at Phaeacia, including a simile that engages with the passage in Odyssey 6:

I think that the bolded language in verse 501 strongly suggests that Vergil read Od. 6.107 to mean that Artemis was taller than her companion nymphs, not that she held her head higher. Of course, Vergil was writing more than half a millenium after the Homeric poems were composed, and he wasn't a native speaker of Greek (although he almost certainly knew Greek very well--better than any of us, and he access to, and had read and engaged with, more Greek literature than we will ever be able to). But at the very least, this Vergilian echo of Od. 6.107 suggests that the "taller than" interpretation was current in antiquity.

While hunting, Actaeon has stumbled on Diana/Artemis bathing in the nude among her nymphs. They crowd around her to prevent Actaeon from seeing her naked, covering her body, but she is taller than they are, and from the neck up she towers over them. (She's indignant, of course, and she goes on to turn Actaeon into a stag and set his own dogs on him, who tear him limb from limb.) This is an echo of Vergil as well as of Homer, embodying the idea that Diana/Artemis stands physically taller than her companion nymphs (not she holds her head above them).

(I haven't had a chance to check Apollonius to see whether he can shed light on the Odyssean simile.)

Philomen Probert, A New Short Guide to the Accentuation of Ancient Greek, §259:

Ancient grammarians, and modern editors, disagree as to whether disyllabic prepositions and preverbs that receive an acute on the first syllable in anastrophe do so even when one or more words intervene between the word governed by the preposition/preverb and the preposition/preverb itself.

Probert goes on to quote examples to the effect that Monro and Allen in OCT follow the "intervening syllables prevent anastrophe rule", but West doesn't. She ("Philomen" is a she, right?) refers to West's Iliad's preface p. XIX and note 42.

Qimmik wrote:But for me, the parallel to Il. 3.210 is very compelling, and I think that the idea in the Odyssey is that Artemis is taller than her companions, not that she holds her head higher. (The "holds her head higher" reading seems to me to trivialize the comparison.)

It's certainly tempting to see in supereminet an echo of ὑπερέχει, even if it was originally in tmesis. I'm still siding with Stanford. The question whether anastrophe occurred after an intervening syllable is probably a tangle in the web of accentuation that we'll never resolve.

Paul Derouda wrote:Wait! What do mean "still"? Doesn't Standord actually agree with us, i.e. that it is a case of tmesis. "She overtops them etc.", not "hold her head etc"?

The "still" is there expressly for you. Firstly because you had not unequivocally distanced yourself from your earlier remark:"I think you can really interprete this in two ways." Or if you did I missed it.And secondly because you strongly suggested a certain antipathy to Stanford: "But actually of all Homer commentaries I've used, the only one I don't like much is Stanford."

Ok, I see your point now. I haven't been very clear myself. Like so often, both interpretations are possible, but I think the "overtops" interpretation is the more likely one. I suggested this very opaquely with "I guess I'm also more convinced by the parallel with Il. 3.210.".

As for my Stanford comment, it was just a digression, it has nothing to do with this passage in particular, I don't have Stanford now and I haven't touched it for a long time. I just remember getting fed up with it because there was something... naive or otherwise outdated about its general outlook, and also because I noticed other commentaries kept pointing out how it was wrong in many places, so I ended up thinking it wasn't reliable. It's possible that I don't remember correctly or that I was wrong in the first place.

For the record, here's what West says in the preface to his Iliad, loosely translated (p. xix):

Concerning anastrophe, we read differing precepts and judgments of the grammarians in the scholia. Herodian's teaching carried more weight among those who followed him, but it shouldn't be accepted everywhere; for he established certain excessively artificial rules, such as that anastrophe doesn't occur if a particle or another word comes in between the noun and the postposition, or if the postposition is elided. These rules were unknown to Aristarchus, to Ptolemy [Ascalonites], and to Nicias. . . . Aristrarchus and his teacher Aristophanes [of Byzantium] were certainly closer to the living tradition of the rhapsodes, and moreover they had a better feeling for what the accents were, when their musical quality had not yet been converted into a stress quality.

In those passages in the Iliad listed by West in fn. 42, where he observes anastrophe despite an intervening word between the noun and the postposition, van Thiel does not, so van Thiel is following Herodian's rule, and his text of the Odyssey therefore doesn't reveal how he interprets Od. 6.107. Von der Muehll didn't publish an edition of the Iliad, and West hasn't published an edition of the Odyssey, so we can't tell.

It might be worthwhile to summarize the results of this thread, since by this point huilen, the original contributor who asked the questions in the first place, has probably stopped following it in disgust at not getting a straight answer.

πασάων δ᾽ ὑπὲρ ἥ γε κάρη ἔχει ἠδὲ μέτωπα, S&H says that κάρη and μέτωπα are accusatives of specification. Could not be just direct objects of ἔχει?

Yes, κάρη and μέτωπα could be direct objects of ἔχει, and some commentators, Garvie most recently, interpret them that way. However, this line seems parallel to Il. 3.210: στάντων μὲν Μενέλαος ὑπείρεχεν εὐρέας ὤμους, where εὐρέας ὤμους can only be interpreted as accusative of specification with the compound verb. (In addition, an echo of this passage in Book 1 of the Aeneid suggests that Vergil understood ὑπὲρ . . . ἔχει as the compound verb ὑπέρεχει in tmesis and thus κάρη and μέτωπα as accusatives of specification.)